TOC

The Biblical Doctrine

of

Election and Predestination

The Biblical Doctrine

of

Election and Predestination

or

Learning NOT to Speak

Reformed Augustinian

Why a Baptist will never hold to a doctrine of Calvinism or Augustinian Predestination

Pastor E. G. Rice

E.G.RicePublishing

PO Box 99 Dresden, NY 14441

Copyright 2007

Edward G. Rice, Pastor

ISBN 1-XXXXX0-0X-X

Library of Congress No.

206XXXXXXX

Dedication

“The author who benefits you most is not the one who tells you something you did not know before, but the one who gives expression to the truth that has been dumbly struggling in you for utterance.¹” The author who benefited me most concerning the errors of Calvinism was without doubt Samuel Fisk in his book “Calvinistic Paths Retraced.” Fisk's editor describes the work with three words; Scriptural; Scholarship; and Thoroughness. Having spent 30 years bumping into the ugly doctrine of Calvinism in Baptist Churches, I found that Fisk gave expression to the truth that has been dumbly struggling in me for utterance. Concerning such struggles, it has been said “If you can not express yourself on any subject, struggle until you can. ... Struggle to re-express some truth of God to yourself, and God will use that expression to someone else.²” .... “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2Tim 2:15)

May my struggles find the expression in this short booklet which will clarify a gross error in soteriology that has plagued Christians since its inception in the mind of St. Augustine (AD 354-430). That error is in considering some chosen and elected for salvation, and some chosen and elected for damnation. The doctrine of election has even been that distorted in some Regular Baptist Churches that I have attended. This booklet is dedicated to the hope that it will keep some from partaking in the crippling poison of that error and give expression to a truth that has been struggling in you for utterance.

This effort was prompted by the airing of Dr. R.C. Sproul's series called “Predestination.” The error broadcast in that airing inflamed righteous indignation and sent me on a quest to express the truth concerning the Biblical doctrine of election. Thank you Dr. R.C. Sproul! Your error has initiated the struggle and it has been for my betterment.

Contents

Forward

Isaiah 53:6 says “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Chapter 1 Introduction – The Dilemma

TOC

The dangerous tentacles of Reformed Augustinian doctrine have invaded our theology to squeeze out Biblical truth and literal Biblical interpretation. We need to learn to recognize the syntax of these tentacles and speak out against the errors which are especially menacing when it comes to a sound doctrine of election and predestination. Believe the Bible or believe Reformed Augustinian doctrine. You can not do both.

Isaiah 53:6 says “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Noted Evangelist Loren Dawson says:

“This verse begins and ends with ‘all.’ If the first ‘all’ is without exception, and it is, what gives us the right, what hermeneutic or homiletic gives us the right to say that the last all is just for a few selected ones? That kind of shoots limited atonement in the foot doesn’t it. ... God doesn’t make that choice, you make that choice! The only thing in this world that is needed to bring down that idol of TULIP Theology is knowing that God in sovereign grace gives man a choice and then holds men accountable to that choice! That just shoots their idol in the head and it all comes down just like Nebuchadnezzar’s idol of gold and the wind blows it all away.”

The gross error found in 5 point Calvinism permeates our theology with a poison. That poison has paralyzed soul winning, hushed prayer closets and stifled our knowledge of God and His will. Their TULIP idol of gold has already been declared dead. Paul Freeman shows us it's epitaph:

“Concerning the Five Points of Calvinism, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorain Boettner has stated, 'prove any one of them true and all of the others will follow as logical and necessary parts of the system. Prove any one of them false and the whole system must be abandoned!' Mr. Boettner is considered an authority on the subject, so I would encourage you to follow his advice. Abandon the system when you find any one of the Five Points to be wrong.²”

The idol has been brought down and this work is intended to make the dangerous pieces turn into 'the chaff of the summer threshing floor' (Dan 2:35) and God can stir the wind that carries it away, 'that no place can be found for them'.

Many works have been published which dispel the errant TULIP model espoused by Calvinism. Many works are available which dispel the errant on-again-off-again will full salvation of Arminianism. This examination is intended to lead you into a sound Biblical stance on a sound Biblical doctrine of election and predestination. The Sovereignty of God and mans free will will be examined and balanced. God's foreknowledge will be coupled with the understanding that God only foreordained certain events, not all events.

Some who have been trained to hold onto some footholds of Calvinism lest they be swept into an Arminian camp will find this search disturbing. Theological speech has been slurred toward Augustinian error and this work will expose that speech impediment. Some who have been trained to discard Calvin but hold on to a foreknowledge solution for election will find this search disturbing. These clearly state that God does not predestine one's election to heaven or to hell but then they say “He just 'fore knows' who will be saved and who will be lost.” Again St. Augustine of Hippo, North Africa, has slurred their thinking so badly that they cannot properly pronounce “Free Will.” Such a 'foreknowledge' view makes it difficult to speak plainly about how “prayer changes things.” Some may find this search disturbing or unsettling but all should find it thought provoking and rewarding.

What you believe controls what you do. When you believe (albeit behind the scenes of conscience thought) that salvation is already determined in God's foreknowledge, fervent prayers that could change the eternal destiny of souls will not be found in your prayer closet. Whether you get disturbed in this quest or not, please explore with me the deep seated errors of Reformed Augustinian doctrine as touching election and predestination, sovereignty and foreknowledge. Exploring these roots of error has brought about various and sometimes hostile reactions by my Baptist brethren. I trust yours will be one which says “Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” (Psalm 139:23-24) I pray that it does.

Before examining the Biblical doctrine of election and predestination we need to go back into history and find out where the erroneous views originated and how they developed. It is rightly called reformed Augustinian doctrine. Bishop Augustine of Hippo cultured it and the protestant reformers extracted it from Roman Catholicism. They then developed it into an ill fated TULIP. It has been called Calvinism because John Calvin riddled it throughout the Geneva Bible. It has been defended by the prince of Baptist Preachers in his work “A Defense of Calvinism” by Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Spurgeon surely did believe in eternal security, and did not want to be called Arminian. The complete history of the false doctrine of election is worthy of some of our study time.

Chapter 2 Origins of the Error

TOC

Baptists distinctively use only the Holy Scripture to determine all of their faith and practice. Various ideas, doctrines and theologies departing from the clear teaching of Scripture are ever present and attract large followings down broad ways. Augustinian theology coagulated into John Calvin's errors which solidified in the reformed thinking called Calvinism. At its heart it removes the free will decision from the salvation experience. It has been stated by the historian Herbert S. Skeats, that:

“It is the singular and distinguished honor of the Baptists to have repudiated from their earliest history all coercive power over the consciences and actions of men with reference to religion. They were the proto-evangelists of the voluntary principle.”³

One of the best tools to continue this repudiation, is to expose the origins of the errors and examine how these origins depart from Holy Scripture. Then seeing the growth and development of this error into a full fledged false doctrine is both alarming and enlightening at the same time.

The grossest errors of Saint Augustine center around an over riding authority of 'The Church' and, center stage in this consideration is a 'compulsory salvation'. Augustine twisted and hyper extended Scripture unmercifully to arrive at, and defend these doctrines. The ugly twists still permeate the theology books of our day. The tentacles of error underlie the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of Calvinism and Arminianism for every Christian who would study “So Great Salvation”⁴ from the Bible. Briefly examine now these origins of error.

Augustinian Error

Augustinian error fell from St. Augustine ( AD 354 - 480) Bishop of Hippo, North Africa, in two major areas. The first in the doctrine of the church, the second in the doctrine of salvation. The two areas of error met where salvation was compulsory. In Augustin's mind salvation could be forced upon a soul by infant baptism or by his doctrine of the two swords, wielded by the Roman Church. But he also devised that God himself had to force salvation on to totally depraved souls by his Sovereignty. All the errors of catholicism are in embryo stage in the teachings of Augustine.⁵ So too, is the predestination errors of Calvinism.

These errors came to full and wretched bloom in the Roman Catholic Imperial Church of the medieval period. When Constantine (AD 306-337) saw the political advantage of replacing the mandatory Roman paganism with a mandatory 'Christian' paganism he locked arms with the Roman Church and brought a second sword, a steel sword, into their mix. The Church at Rome took the allegorizing of Augustine and concluded with him that Jesus said to sell your garments and buy swords and that two swords are sufficient⁶ (Luke 22:38)

Constantine commanded that there be 'one state ordered religion' for 'one unified empire.' This scheme used God's Sword of the Spirit, supposedly wielded by the Roman Church, united with Man's Sword of Steel wielded by a magistrate to force the Kingdom of God upon all the unified Roman Empire. What became called Constantinianism, (or compulsory Christianity, vs. voluntary salvation by faith via free will) is found in its embryonic stage in Augustin's theology. Leonard Verduin writes in “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” ⁷

“It was Augustine, he perhaps more than any other, who supplied the Constantinians with arguments from the Scriptures (or rather with arguments fastened upon the Scriptures) where by coercion was rendered theologically respectable. The expression found in Luke 14:23, “Constrain them to come in,” rendered in Latin Compelle intrare, was exactly what he needed in his running battle with the Donatists.

“The followers of Donatus were offering to secede from the “fallen” Church and to go their own way, a step which the advocates of “Christian sacralism” (Constantinianism) could not permit, for it would strike at the very heart of their dream of a faith common to all in the empire. Hence they let it be known, early in the conflict, that schism would not be permitted but would be opposed, if need be with arms. Thereupon the Donatists pointed out that this would be to deviate from the policies of the Master, who had not raised a finger, much less a sword, to restrain people from going away. More than that, when a sizable group walked out He had confronted His disciples with the wistful question, “Do you not also want to go?⁸”

”To this line of thought – the cogency of which had not escaped him – Augustine replied:

“I hear that you are quoting that which is recorded in the Gospel, that when the seventy followers went back from the Lord they were left to their own choice in this wicked and impious desertion and that He said to the twelve remaining 'Do you not also want to go?' But what you fail to say is that at the time the Church was only just beginning to burst forth from the newly planted seed and that the saying had not yet been fulfilled in her “All kings shall fall down before Him, all nations shall serve him.” It is in proportion to the more enlarged fulfillment of this prophecy that the Church now wields greater power – so that she may now not only invite but also compel men to embrace that which is good.” (Augustine's Letter to Donatus, No. 173 as printed in Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, ed, Philip Schaff, Vol. 1.)

”Here we have an early representation of the notion that the Church of Christ was intended by its Founder to enter into a situation radically different from the one depicted in the New Testament. Here we have the beginnings of the notion , which reigned supreme in the minds of men all through the medieval times, that part way into the Christian era a change was intended by the King of the Church himself – a change whereby the world of apostolic times would become obsolete. This change was identified with the Constantinian innovation. This idea set forth by Augustine controlled the thought and the theology of European man all through medieval times. It led to all sorts of theological absurdities ... “

The theological absurdity that God preselected individual souls for salvation and forces his will on them with an irresistible grace is but one of the problems of Augustinian's compulsory salvation theology. His compulsory salvation via infant baptism, via 'be baptized' or 'be burned' or via God's Sovereignty has caused many a Baptist, Anabaptist, Donatist, Waldensian, and Believer their martyrdom. Baptists needn't lean toward it in any form today, especially not in the realm of election or foreordained salvation of some individuals.

Augustine gets worse in his error as he continues to allegorize and misconstrue Scripture as follows:

“This (namely the 'enlarged fulfillment' idea which now puts the Church in position to coerce) He (Christ) shows plainly enough in the parable of the wedding feast; after He had summoned the invited ones ... and the servants have said 'It has been done as you ordered and yet there is room' the Master said 'Go out in the highways and hedges and compel them to come in in order that my house may be full.' Now observe how that it was 'bring them in' and not 'compel them,' by which the incipient condition of the Church is signified, during which she was but growing toward the position of being able to compel. Since it was right by reason of greater strength and power to coerce men to the feast of eternal salvation therefore it was said later ... 'Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in.' “ (Augustine's Letter to Donatus, No. 173)

He goes on with his theology of coercion into the kingdom with this taunt to Donatists:

“And so if you (Donatists) were strolling quietly outside the feast of eternal salvation and the unity of the holy Church then we would overtake you on your 'highways'; but now that you verily by many injuries and cruelties which you perpetrate upon our people, are full of thorns and spines, now we come upon you in your 'hedges' to compel you. The sheep which is compelled is coerced while it is unwilling, but after it has been brought in it may graze as its own volition wills. (Augustine's Letter to Donatus, No. 173)

Leonard Verduin, researching for the “Calvin Foundation” itself, shows in his book these Scripture twisting, aberrant theology forming quotes of Augustine. He also demonstrates his antecedent role in Constantinianism, or compulsory salvation by a sword wielding, infant baptizing Church. We, here, understand them as forming another large theological blunder concerning compulsory salvation in the doctrine of predestination that would bloom into its ugly TULIP under John Calvin. Again we reiterate in the Biblical doctrine of election that salvation is always a free will voluntary decision of a free moral agent. It is never compulsory. It is never to be coerced, not by a Roman sword, not by the baptism of an infant, not by a decree of God, not by a doctrine of election , not by a foreordaining of individuals to salvation, and not by a fatalistic foreknowledge of God. Not coerced, nor mandated in any way by man nor God it is ever left as the voluntaryanism of “Whosoever will may come.”

The Vulgar Vulgate Errors

The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated by Jerome between 382 and 405 AD. This translation, a contemporary of St Augustine's fallacies (Agustine 354 - 480 AD) contained many translation errors which seeded misinterpretations in both Catholicism and then, in turn in Reformer's Calvinism. The three 'P's that should immediately come to mind with the Vulgar Vulgate are priests, penance and predestination. Priest craft, came from the mistranslation of 'presbytery'; paying penance, came from the mistranslation of Biblical 'repentance'; and predestination of souls, came from the overpowering mistranslation of the Greek 'proorizo'. This word does not mean predestine! It's meaning is 'to decide beforehand', with no connection with God's decreeing, predestining, or deciding before creation.

These three Vulgate mistranslations were not accidental. Jerome was pandering to the errant theology of his day when he included the avenues for priest craft, man paid penance, and a God decreed destiny of souls and life events. This is a powerful allegation. We should include some of the supporting references. In his “General Introduction to the study of the Holy Scripture” F.E. Gigots, a leading catholic authority states:

“The Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and arbitrary dealing in particulars... the high place the Vulgate holds even to this day in the Roman Church, where it is unwarrantably and perniciously placed on an equality with the original.”⁹

Samuel Berger goes on to point out more specific errors in “Cambridge History of the Bible” stating:

“We might also point out certain number of passages in which the translation assumes a dogmatic or moral bearing which seems to be outside that of the original. Those are serious defects in our translation of the Holy Writ. ...Well known examples of 'far reaching errors' include the whole system of Catholic 'penance', drawn from the Vulgate's “do penance” ... when the Latin should, of course, have followed the Greek “repent.” Likewise the word “sacrament” was a mis-rendering from the Vulgate of the original word “mystery.” Even more significant, perhaps, was the rendering of the word “presbyter” (elder) as 'priest!' ...

“Thus the Vulgate became the most vulgarized and bastardized text imaginable. ...

“This Vulgate was taken to England and became the basis of the Christianity with such deep root in that rich soil ... error and all.”¹⁰

In his book “An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament”, A.T. Robertson says of Henslow's book:

“he has a striking section on 'the Vulgate as the source of false doctrines.' It is difficult to estimate the influence of the Vulgate on all modern versions...”¹¹

The term 'predestination' alas comes from the Vulgate. In Acts 13:48, the Vulgate has 'praeordinati' unfairly; Augustine's English for 'destinati' is a much too strong a word and the phrase 'as many as were ordained (Latin-praeordinati, but Greek-tasso) to eternal life believed'' is used off hand to 'prove' election of individuals. You see, Vulgate error invades Calvin's doctrine of Election.

Dean Henry Alford, student of the original Greek renders this verse (Acts 13:48) “as many as were disposed to eternal life,” then adds “by whom so disposed is not here declared!”¹²

Samuel Fisk has a whole section showing this error and demonstrates in part with:

“Bishop Wadsworth himself, a gifted linguist, authority on the Vulgate and commentator on the text of the New Testament (The New Testament in the Original Greek, with Introduction and notes”) states “It would be interesting to inquire, what influence these renderings in the Vulgate version had on the minds of some, like St. Augustine and his followers in the Western Church, in treating the great questions of Free will, Election, Reprobation and Final Perseverance. What also was the result of that influence on the minds of some writers of the Reformed Churches who rejected the authority of Rome, which almost canonized that version (the Vulgate), and yet in these two important texts (Acts 2:47, and Acts 13:48) where swayed away by it from the sense of the originals.”

“The tendency of the Eastern (Greek) Fathers who read the original Greek was in a different direction from that of the Western school; and Calvinism can receive no support from these 2 texts as they stand in the original words of inspiration, and as they were expanded by the primitive Church” (from “The Acts of the Apostles” p108)

“On Acts 2:47 Cooks Commentary¹³ ... and on 'were ordained' in Acts 13:48 it states “ ... followed the Vulgate. Rather 'were set in order for, i.e. 'disposed for eternal life'; as in the Syriac, or the passive of this verb being used as equivalent to the middle.”¹⁴

We see from this very brief examination that translation errors in the Latin Vulgate greatly propagated the error of individual election first conceived by St. Augustine. The gross error plummeted through centuries of Roman Catholic salvation by coercion and then took root in John Calvin's fertile ground of misconceptions concerning these Scriptures.

What the Bible Says:

These two verses (Acts 2:47, and Acts 13:48) are badgered about so, it is important to see them accurately translated without a Latin, Catholic or Calvinistic influence. Of coarse we know that the King James translation has the superior text, the superior translators, the superior technique and the superior theology in its translation.¹⁵ Thus, here they are in that superior translation:

Acts 2:47 “Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

Acts 13:48 “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

The clear emphasis in both is that only the saved, i.e. converted, born again ones, get added to the Church. There is no indication that there is a pre-ordaining towards salvation in either verse.

With great consistency, every time the Greek word 'tasso' was used in the Bible (8 times) as a perfect tense, passive voice, participle (2 of the 8 times in Acts 13:48 and Rom 13:1) it was properly translated 'ordain' by the King James translators. Ordain contains in it's definition: 'to put in order'. And it is clear that those in Acts 13:48 were put in order to receive eternal life by their conversion not by any predestination. The point is, only the converted were added. We should be so careful to add only the truly converted, born again ones, to our local Church.

What of John Calvin and the Error

The election and predestination theology of John Calvin (1509 – 1564) came, not form the Bible, but because he learned to speak the Reformed Augustinian error. John Calvin popularized three prominent theological errors¹⁶. He supported a strong Church dominated state¹⁷, the baptism of infants by sprinkling, and the election of souls for salvation by predestination.

A short study shows that John Calvin had nothing to do with the 5 points of Calvinism. His error, instead, had these three major points, a State's Church, an infant's baptism and a soul's predestination. He believed Augustine's teachings that man could not make the decision for Salvation by any use of free will, and thus one's salvation was compulsory by God's sovereignty alone. He was in error to believe Augustine's teaching that if God predetermined those who would be saved and those who would be lost, he must have done it in an infinite plan before the foundation of the earth. And then he was in error to believe the Augustinian folly that since election of individuals for salvation is required, then EVERY act, breath, and thought of man is decreed to happen, and that such 'decreeing' was done before the foundation of the earth.

Again, John Calvin reckoned that EVERYTHING was in God's infinite and unchangeable plan and Sovereign control and that this infinite plan was established and written before the foundation of the world. We will see in this study, that there is no Scripture to support such a conjecture, only Augustinian's doctrine and language. This over bearing establishment of God's decreeing every detail of ones life is expressed in his overemphasis on God's Sovereignty and directly resulting underemphasis on man's free will.

The five points of Calvinism are found nowhere in Calvin's writings, but these three fallacious, un-Biblical notions are found throughout his commentaries, and tainted all his theology. Some review of his work will show that John Calvin was speaking Reformed Augustinian, not Biblical Exegesis, when he wrote his commentaries and formed his theology.

The Reformed Systemization of the TULIP Error

The 5 point hypothesized TULIP model of Calvinism came, not from the Bible, nor from John Calvin, but from a Presbyterian 'knee-jerk' reaction to James Harmensen's (1560-1609) five contentions to Augustinian errors about election and predestination. Harmensen, (in Latin Arminius, thus the name Arminianism) refused to speak Reformed Augustinian with such vehemence that his name rings clear to this day. The ring is the opposite in extreme of the 5 points called TULIP. Some have errantly been taking their corners in a 'boxing ring' on either the side of Calvinism or Arminianism ever since. Neither corner is Biblical. Some try to pick a center point in this boxing ring and call it Biblicist. One actually needs a model that would add a third dimension to our geometry and get us off this boxing ring approach. Such a dimension will be introduce in this treaties.

Robert Lewis Dabney (1820 – 1898), a noted American Presbyterian pastor, theologian and one of Southern Presbyterianism's most influential scholars, writes on this point:

“HISTORICALLY, this title (The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP) is of little accuracy or worth; I use it to denote certain points of doctrine, because custom has made it familiar. Early in the seventeenth century the Presbyterian Church of Holland, whose doctrinal confession is the same in substance with ours, was much troubled by a species of new-school minority, headed by one of its preachers and professors, James Harmensen, in Latin, Arminius (hence, ever since, Arminians). Church and state have always been united in Holland; hence the civil government took up the quarrel. Professor Harmensen (Arminius) and his party were required to appear before the States General (what we would call Federal Congress) and say what their objections were against the doctrines of their own church, which they had freely promised in their ordination vows to teach. Arminius handed in a writing in which he named five points of doctrine concerning which he and his friends either differed or doubted. These points were virtually: Original sin, unconditional predestination, invincible grace in conversion, particular redemption, and perseverance of saints. I may add, the result was: that the Federal legislature ordered the holding of a general council of all the Presbyterian churches then in the world, to discuss anew and settle these five doctrines. This was the famous Synod of Dort, or Dordrecht, where not only Holland ministers, but delegates from the French, German, Swiss, and British churches met in 1618.” ¹⁸

The Presbyterian position has been solid since their Synod. But for Bible believers of other stripes the Reformed Augustinian errors embraced by the Presbyterians have often crept in unawares. Baptists, (once referred to as “People of the Book”) who are pressured to lean to one corner or the other of this Calvinist vs Arminian boxing match, have toppled into a Calvinist pit of error and are unwittingly slurring their speech with Augustinian errors. Most Baptists now will not step as far away from Augustine's 'Doctrine of Decrees' as the Bible requires. This thesis proposes to help recognize, and correct the leanings toward this Reformed Augustinian position.

What of C. H. Spurgeon's Defense of Calvinism?

A Presbyterian Clergy that responded to a letter to R.C. Sproul's organization curtly commented that “small minds should let Spurgeon be their spokesman when it comes to wording a Baptist position about Calvinism.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), the 'Prince of Preachers' was indeed a British Reformed Baptist Preacher. He did indeed write “A Defense of Calvinism” which makes him highly influential amongst reformed Christians of different denominations, especially the Presbyterians. But Baptists who read his work do not relish him as their spokesman concerning the error's of Calvinism. He spoke a noticeable twang of Reformed Augustinian in this defense, but more so, he articulated a staunch position against the fluctuations and doctrinal irresponsibleness of Arminianism. Baptists do hold to his brazen denial of Arminian's doctrinal error, but not to his leanings toward Augustinian theology. Spurgeon states that:

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

Indeed, Spurgeon became a well cited spokesman for the errant doctrine of Calvinism's Predestination. This entanglement with error is a result of excessive esteem for the Catholic's Saint Augustine, and the Protestant's John Calvin. As he states it:

"You may take a step from Paul to Augustine, then from Augustine to Calvin, and then-well, you may keep your foot up a good while before you find such another." When he visited the Simplon Hospice, he said, "I was delighted to find that they are Augustine monks, because, next to Calvin, I love Augustine. I feel that Augustine was the great mine out of which Calvin digged his mental wealth; and the Augustine monks, in practicing their holy charity, seemed to say: 'Our Master was a teacher of grace, and we will practice it, and give without money and without price to all comers whatsoever they need.¹⁹

Spurgeon's leaning into error is well illustrated in his conversation with a peer:

“When Mr. Spurgeon went, years ago, to preach for Dr. Clifford, whose church was then at Praed Street, he said in the vestry before the service, "I cannot imagine, Clifford, why you do not come to my way of thinking," referring to his Calvinistic views.

"Well," answered John Clifford, "you see, Mr. Spurgeon, I only see you about once a month, but I read my Bible every day."²⁰

For his defense of Calvinism, Protestants continually cite Spurgeon as a Baptist spokesman, and Baptists lean on his authority to travel on this garden path of predestinational error. This is the unfortunate side of C. H. Spurgeon's otherwise immaculate legacy. His tomb reads:

Here lies the body of

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

waiting for the appearing of his

Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

On the other side of the tomb is the verse of the hymn he was accustomed to write in albums:

E'er since by faith I saw the stream

Thy flowing wounds supply,

Redeeming love has been my theme,

And shall be till I die.²¹

Even though Spurgeon dragged Augustin's error into Baptist circles, his theme was always the redeeming love of Christ available to whosoever would believe. In his preaching it was profoundly clear that your fate for all eternity depended on what you personally did with the Only Begotten Son of God, and not on what God may have decided before the foundation of the world.

C.H. Spurgeon's work “A Defense of Calvinism”²² would be better titled “A Defense of the Gospel.” Although he mentions in passing three points of the Calvinist TULIP, he does not articulate an acceptance of their model as much as he rejects the Arminian model, there being only these two choices in popular view in the 1800s.

Conventionally there has been a straight line between Calvinism and Arminianism and you must plot out a position on that line. In this treaties we will establish a triangle model rather than a straight line model. Spurgeon stayed on the line positioned toward the Calvinist's half. You and I can step off the line and become Biblicists. To understand better where a Biblicist would differ from Spurgeon's defense let's look at a condensed outline of his “Defense of Calvinism.”

On pages 1-15²³, Spurgeon defends the steadfast everlasting nature of one's salvation against the shallow fickleness of the Arminian model. Baptists hold dogmatically to this eternal security position.

On pages 15-30 he develops that salvation is all of grace and none of works. Again, the Bible and Baptists are clear on this point and likewise contend with the fickle Arminian model on this point.

On pages 30-60 he develops and “epitome of Calvinism” which he contends to be “Salvation is of the Lord.” His continual emphasis throughout, as is ours, is that salvation is by grace and not by works. In this section he uses 5 pages to purport that God loved him, and chose him before the foundation of the world. He uses no Scripture, for such a declaration, only a mocking slander against an Arminian preacher. Spurgeon therein regurgitates the baseless Augustinian doctrine that election of individual souls took place before the foundation of the world, but he does know better than try to find a Biblical defense of such tripe, there is none. Again he is more so rejecting Arminianism than defending Calvinism.

In pages 60-90 Spurgeon graciously speaks for John Wesley and his doctrine of whosoever will. He points out the dilemma between his own belief in election and the Wesley Brother's Biblical position on the free will of man. He defends his holding to the idea of decrees in this dilemma, but graciously backs away from a hard line Calvinistic model. Based on his own salvation experience, Spurgeon concludes that God must have chosen him, because he would never have chosen God. God must have orchestrated each event in his life, because they alone brought him to God. In this study we will learn that God's calling and wooing does not make for God's choosing and electing. In this study we will delineate that God's orchestrating of events in our lives does not necessitate a decree written before the foundation of the earth. These are things that Spurgeon wrestled with in this defense, but he never came to a clear Biblical position on election and decrees. You and I can do so more particularly.

In pages 90-100 he contends against universalism's model that says 'all of mankind is saved by Christ's sacrifice'. Baptists contend against this as well, and need to more contend with the American Bible Society and the United Bible Society which are both so aligned with this abominable universalist doctrine.

In pages 100-120 Spurgeon acknowledges that his doctrine of election completely obliterates God's doctrine of “whosoever will may come.” He mentions the matter of leaning toward the “less licentious” of the two doctrines. He again speaks out against Arminianism. Then C.H. Spurgeon expertly likens the two considerations as two parallel railroad tracks that run through the Bible but do not visibly touch; but when you look way off toward the throne of God they seem to merge, but only there. Spurgeon was no Calvinist, he just believed the Bible account of so great salvation.

Baptists, however, shall not let Spurgeon be their spokesman concerning the Doctrine of Election and Predestination. He developed no Biblical basis for a pre-world election of souls, though he apparently believed it, rather than believing in an Arminian model. He developed no Biblical basis for the decrees of God to include his every thought and finger movement, though for himself, he would rather believe that, than to believe he moved toward God of his own free will. He developed no Biblical basis that God draws men with an irresistible grace, though he would rather believe that, than the Arminian preachers he heard. Spurgeon did not delineate the unBiblical errors of Reformed Augustinian doctrine of election and predestination. He reluctantly learned to speak them as his own beliefs. He could not foundation them in Scripture, though they are prevalent in theology books. You and I want to be more careful to let the Bible determine our doctrine of election and predestination.

Spurgeon and Calvin, Knox and Edwards were all great preachers, but they had their speech tainted with Reformed Augustinian. I don't mind that they did. I don't mind that you do, but I do want to educate about the slur in speech that comes from such tainted doctrine. It could be you would prefer to speak more legibly on the subject of election and predestination. It could be you will recognize Reformed Augustinian and thereby better comprehend the King's English when considering His “so great salvation.”

Chapter 3 What is Election

TOC

To see what Biblical election is all about, lets first carefully examine the use of the term throughout the Bible. To often one goes about this examination backward. They determine what they believe about a subject, then go to the Bible trying to support their belief. For most this is the danger involved in examining the Biblical doctrine of election and predestination. There is present an a priori unction that election has to do with a soul receiving salvation or rejecting it. It is a bold statement but it needs to be said here: 'Nowhere in the Bible is election concerned with the eternal, heaven or hell as the destiny of a soul.' Always election is to service not to destiny. Now with any a priori belief system well shaken and on the table for examination let us begin by examining the election of Israel.

Israel was elect, a chosen nation, a chosen people. They were elect to do three major deeds;

- to deliver the Messiah to humanity;

- to deliver the written precepts of God to mankind; and

- to show monotheism to the whole world.

First, through Israel we trace the chosen seed. This righteous seed goes through individuals, tribes, kings, harlots and Moabites. For seed purposes, the Bible says that Jacob was loved and Esau was hated. (Mal 1:2-3, Rom 9:13) Esau was not chosen for eternal damnation to hell in this hatred, he was just not chosen as the seed line of the Lord Jesus Christ. The seed traced from Abraham through Judah, (Gen 12:7, Gen 49:10) through David (2Sam 7:16) then for Joseph through Solomon, but for Mary through Nathan.²⁴ This elect seed is carefully traced to the Messiah who was to be of the tribe of Judah and the seed of David. This tracing of the seed line is a major drama of the Old Testament narrative, a drama that pits Satan against Jehovah God for the delivery of the seed that is to dash his head. (Genesis 3)

Secondly, Israel was elect to deliver the written precepts of God to mankind. (Rom 3:1-2) Through Israel the 39 books of the Bible's Old Testament were written and preserved, and through them the 27 books of the Bible's New Testament were written²⁵.

Thirdly, Israel was elect to show to the whole world that “the LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut. 6:4, Mar 12:29) and that the world's polytheism was idolatry. In Mar 12:29 Jesus called this the first of all the commandments, and through Israel this message of monotheism was manifest to the world. He says to Isaiah “Ye²⁶ are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.” (Isa 43:10-12)

The election of individuals and of people in the Old Testament was thus an election to accomplish a task. Nowhere in this election of a people to do these tasks is an individual soul elected or predestined to an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell. Election in the Old Testament is always for service, to work the purposes of God in this life, here on this earth.

As in the Old Testament where individuals are chosen to accomplish three major tasks on this earth, so in the New Testament God has chosen individuals to accomplish three major tasks on this earth. Those with this tasking are called the elect. They are not chosen because of merit, not chosen at birth, nor before creation, but they become chosen, or elect, when they are born again into the body of the Elect One, the Lord Jesus Christ. Those who are 'in Christ' are as elect as the Christ. They were not chosen to be 'in Christ' but once they are 'in Christ,' through their new birth, they are elect for three major tasks. They are elect in Him:

- to be his witnesses to the lost dying world,

- to manifest Christ in this world, and

- to be the temple the Holy Spirit of God.

Acts 1:8 says: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Christians are the elect in this world to be His witnesses. The become elect when they receive the Holy Spirit. They receive the Holy Spirit when they are born-again, converted, regenerated, saved, and ... not until. Through the Church we are commissioned to preach the gospel to every creature. (Mar 16:15) We, as born again believers are to witness to every creature, even house to house, and to every nation, how God saved us, and can save anybody. They went house to house in Acts 2:46. Paul did so in Acts 20:20. We, who are in Christ, are elect to be His witnesses.

Christians are also elect in Him to be the manifestation of Christ to the lost dying world. That is why they were first called Christians; because they looked like, acted like, reacted like, and talked like the Christ. Believers are elect to be the manifestation of Christ in this world. Jesus said it this way; “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt 5:14-16) The apostles regularly exhort us as the elect. Peter writes to 'strangers scattered about ... elect according to the foreknowledge of God' and then tells these elect “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (1Pet 2:11-12) Peter is not here writing to someone who is elect for a salvation experience down the road! No, he is exhorting those who are elect for service. The Apostle Paul regularly exhorts believers to behave like elect ones, and regularly reminds believers that they are the elect, because they are 'in Christ' not as if they will get 'in Christ.' Note his wording in Col 3:12-13, “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” This is not a challenge to those who are elect for salvation. It is a charge that the elect in Christ might be the manifestation of Christ in this world. A charge to the elect to the service that they are chosen for now that they are 'in Christ.'

Thirdly we are elect in Him as a people to be the temple of the Holy Spirit of God in this world. The Spirit that reproves the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment dwells only in the elect.²⁷ It does not dwell in one prior to salvation and no one prior to salvation can hold the title of 'elect.' The spirit enters in at salvation, one is then added to the kingdom of God, (John 3) added to the family²⁸ of God (as adopted, as dear children, as having a new Father) and therein we become the elect, the tabernacle of God. The late Evangelist Loren Dawson said it most clearly this way “In the Old Testament God builds a tabernacle for His people, in the New Testament God builds a people for His tabernacle.” If you are saved you are the elect, the temple of the Holy Ghost. If you are yet in your sins, unsaved, not yet regenerated, no matter how much Calvin and Augustine may call you elect before the foundation of the world, you cannot be elect for this service until you are ushered into the kingdom of God. There is a time when this presence of the Holy Spirit will be taken out of the world.²⁹ Until that time it is the elect who are housing the Holy Spirit of God in this world. The New Testament elect are his chosen vessels for this purpose.

As before, in the Old Testament, this New Testament election is for service to work God's purposes in this life on this earth. Nowhere in the use of this term is an individual soul elected to an eternity in heaven or an eternity in hell. Further, nowhere in the New Testament's presentation of election, is any individual elected or chosen prior to his acceptance of Christ as Lord and Saviour.

So how has Christendom so readily departed from this Biblical representation of who the elect are? How have even Baptists succumbed to teaching that God foreknows who will be saved and who will be lost, thus sealing fates for eternity? In studying the Biblical doctrine of election we find that Augustine was wrong when he read into Scripture the predestination of individual souls into heaven. We see that John Calvin, who systematized this error into a theology and saw it permeate the Geneva Bible, did a great travesty to truth and theology. It is clear that the reformed theologian who preaches election as the predestination of individual souls into heaven or hell is so twisting the Bible doctrine of election as to make some two fold more the child of hell. So too the Baptist who believes and preaches the individual election of souls to heaven or hell is dabbling in error and false teaching which malign his very election to service as a witness to the world, as the manifestation of the love of Christ in the world, and as a temple of the Holy Spirit to reprove the world.

Nowhere in Scripture is an individual elected to be in Christ. But those that are in Christ are elect. Once 'in' they are the elect for special service in this world. One does not enter the kingdom of God because he was elected to enter (Eph 2:8-9 says “for by grace are ye saved” not by election), but one becomes the elect because he is born into the kingdom. (Eph 2:10 says “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”) One does not get in by election (John 3:14-19), but once 'in', one is elect and tasked to service. Again examine Col 3:12 as it clarifies that election is for work not for justification “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” Now that we are in the kingdom of God, 'whosoever wills' that are installed by grace through faith, and that not of election, we are to behave as elect ones with work to do. Again, how does one get 'in'? You must make an individual decision of your will to accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom 10:13) Once 'in' you are elected to service for your Lord, as you walk here in this life. Ergo election is to service, not to salvation.

A table of Old Testament election and New Testament election helps clarify that election is always for service and not for an eternal destiny. It also points out the parallels in the two elections.

Can I get a witness? Yes, several. In “Subjets Of Sovereignty,” Andrew Telford says:

“Nowhere in the Bible is Election connected with the salvation or damnation of a human soul. ... The most important phase of Election pertains to service ... Election has to do with service. It is God's elect who serve him.” ³⁰

In “The Theology Of The New Testament,” George B. Stevens states that:

“What was the nature and the purpose of this divine election of Israel? I answer that Paul conceives of it as a historic action of God in setting apart the Jewish nation to a special mission or function in the world as the bearer of his revelation to all mankind. ... These chapters (Rom 9-11) speak of election to a historic function or mission, not of eternal destiny. ... Theology has often applied these ideas to the subject of man's final destiny. Whatever may be the logic of such an application, it is exegetically³¹ unjustifiable. ... Paul does not teach the doctrine of predestination which Calvin taught, nor does he teach the doctrine as held by historic Calvinism.” ³²

And in “Word Studies In The New Testament” Marvin R. Vincent clarifies:

“ 'Ekloge' election ... and kindred words, to 'choose', and 'chosen' or 'elect', are used of God's selection of men or agencies for special missions or attainments; but neither here (1Thes 1:4) nor elsewhere in the New Testament is there any warrant for the revolting doctrine that God has predestined a definite number of mankind to eternal life, and the rest to eternal destruction.”³³

In the pages that follow the Biblical doctrine of election will be explored. It will differ greatly from Reformed theology because it will be based on Biblical exegesis rather than on Augustinian error. It will contend with and dis-spell the Calvinistic theology and the reformed TULIP ³⁴ that sprang from the fertile protestant ground of misrepresented Scripture from a vulgar Vulgate,³⁵ and the erred doctrines that came from Alexandria Egypt.

The errors of Calvinism have crept into our Churches unawares. Directly they have quieted soul winners, halted street preaching, bus routes, mission outreach and visitation efforts. Indirectly the tentacles of these errors have entangled our understanding of how an individual comes to Christ. They have given us the idea that God foreknows who will be saved, and it is all fixed in the future. Thus some Baptists, who are supposed to be people of the book, have gotten the ill conceived notion that their salvation was foreknown before the foundation of the world. Baptists have tangled into an idea that their lives are mapped out before the world was created. Such ill notions are from Calvin's theology book not from God's Holy Bible.

With this brief overview of Biblical election in view we will look at some theological considerations and then explore every conceivable Scripture that might address election, predestination and foreknowledge. This is important to make sure that the theological model that we tweak free of Calvinistic error remains true to Scriptures. This treaties will clarify and show that there are not two views of election, Calvin and Arminian, but three, Calvin's error, Arminian's reactive over correction, (Arminian over emphasizing free will) and the Biblical treatment of the doctrine of election and predestination. May God bless you in your studies of this latter view.

Chapter 4 Systematic Theology Considerations

TOC

A systematic theology is developed around what the Bible says about doctrines. Doctrines are built around what the Bible says about principles and concepts. There is an ever present danger of reading into the Bible what we logically believe when it is not actually present. In that way your systematic theology effects how you read the Bible, rather than allowing the Bible to regulate your systematic theology. This has always been the case for the doctrines of election, predestination, and foreknowledge. It is important to develop a system of thinking which captures what we know about God, but it must also be considered that there will be no simple system and any system will be limited because we are finite creatures trying to grapple with an infinite God. With that warning of failure for present systematic theologies, and warning of limitation for any such systems, consider some of the pitfalls and logical dilemmas of systematic theology regarding the doctrines of election, predestination and foreknowledge.

It is imperative to start with an examination of what happens when a person is born again. Calvinism not only negates the 'whosoever wills' found in the the Bible, it destroys the working model of soteriology³⁶. A good working model of soteriology will merge God's foreknowledge and man's free will. There has also been an overbearing reaction on this balance called 'Open Theology' which started with some good concepts but went far deeper into a theological quagmire than is practical or advisable.

A Steriologyical Model

Christianity, being made up of those who believe that Jesus was the Christ, very literally Jehovah God in the flesh, can be separated into various groups based on their consideration of the doctrine of salvation, or the doctrine of the new birth, i.e. the understanding of what happens when one is born again. Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Brethren, even Charismatic and non-denominationals all crumble into divided sects when one considers the 'who can be saved' , the 'how one gets saved', and the 'how long one stays saved' questions. These differences find an epicenter in what happens when one is "born again". Thus, this makes a hingepin for clearly distinguishing between 'Christian faiths', between denominations, and even within 'Christian movements'. There are not a multiple of correct answers here.

Using our Bible to evaluate what takes place when a person is saved, and contrasting that with the teaching of a denomination, can bring into focus many of the important differences between denominations. Establishing and understanding this root difference clarifies both intra-denominational and inter-denominational squabbling and misunderstandings about the exact syntax of other doctrinal issues. Particularly here it will help clarify and falsify the Catholic doctrine of sacraments (the 'how is salvation obtained?' question), the Reformed doctrine of election (the 'who can be saved?' question) and Arminian doctrine of perseverance (the 'how long one stays saved?' question). Clarifying these questions through a look at what happens when one is born-again, will bring into focus a majority of denominational differences within Christendom. Here, it is intended to expose the error of Calvinism.

A Biblical Model of the New Birth

There are two ways of developing a systematic model that captures what Jesus called "being born again", or "being saved", or "receiving eternal life." The one to often used is to consider 1) the preponderance of Scripture, 2) the orthodox teaching of the past and 3) the logic and philosophy of human reasoning. One then develops a model, chooses supporting verses and sticks with the model, regardless. This method has been widely used and the results take on the names of their prominent developers such as Calvinism, or Arminianism. Such models will often be defended to the death, even when their developments contradict Scripture. A second, and preferred approach, is to consider the preponderance of scripture alone, develop a systematic model, then, and only then, contrast the model with the orthodox teaching of the past. This contrast provides a sanity check but more so a completeness check of the Biblical model. One would then, and only then, consider the logic and philosophy of human reasoning to comprehend the model.

We use our deductive reasoning to comprehend Scripture, but we also have a tendency to use our reasoning to twist Scripture and make it fit into our realm of world view, philosophy and reason. Thus, where this systematic model does not fit our finite comprehension, we are not to tweak the Biblically based model, but compensate our finite understanding with the knowledge that God's thoughts are not mans thoughts.

“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa 55:7-9)

We need to build our salvation model faithful to the Scriptures and be careful that our poorer understandings, our human reasoning, and our philosophy do not create a misrepresentation of 'so great salvation.'

There are five aspects in the Scripture that seem to capture completely what happens to an individual when they are 'born again.' These are 1) Conversion, 2) Regeneration, 3) Justification, 4) Baptism into Christ, and 5) Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The new birth is likened to physical birth. There is no time delayed sequence of these events, and no process that drags them out over a period of time, but 5 immediate transactions that occur when one is born-again.

The immediacy of the new-birth, with all five portions occurring at one instant in time, is vital to the comprehension of Biblical salvation, and is key to distinguishing difference between various denominational teachings. Understanding the new-birth as just that, an event in time, for an individual, where all five of these ingredients come together and take place simultaneously, clarifies, distinguishes, and safeguards the Biblical teaching from most doctrinal error and 'another gospels'.³⁷ The hinge pin that distinguishes most clearly between doctrines and denominations is how far they will separate any of these 5 events from one another and take them out of a distinct, individual, personal salvation experience. An example developed later but given here for illustration, is the timing of the occurrence of regeneration within the Reformed & Presbyterian doctrine. Many holding to a predestined individual soul election contend that a soul in sin is totally depraved, so depraved he is incapable of turning one fiber of his being towards the redeeming act of salvation. Thus before that person could start down a path that would lead to conversion, he must be regenerated. Regeneration, then is separated from the other events above, and made an event that precedes the new birth. Some would go so far as to place the regenerative act at conception or birth of an individual. This is done to fit their model and philosophy of election, even though it clearly disintegrates the Biblical model of the new birth. We can carefully develop the timing of these five and demonstrate that in Scripture they all occur simultaneously. Then we simply stick tenaciously to the Scriptures as a Biblicist would.

With this basic model of the new birth, we should define each of these 5 ingredients of the new birth. Another paper³⁸ shows in more depth how each systematically falls out of the Scriptures and how they are tied together in time as a single event. Briefly examine each event here.

Conversion is the turning from sin to Christ. This is the human initiation in the salvation transaction. It equally involves turning from sin and turning to Christ, you can not have one side without the other and still have this transaction complete. It involves a completeness in turning from sin and a completeness in turning to Christ in faith. God is not interested in making any new or special deals here; so one must wholly repent and turn from sin (singular) and wholly grasp Christ in faith, letting go of all else for the security of his soul. Conversion is thus repentance and faith together, as Paul so testified “how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20:20-21)

Regeneration is "that act of God by which new, spiritual life is implanted in man whereby the governing disposition of the soul is made holy by the Holy Spirit through truth as the means."³⁹ Dr. W. Vanhetloo gave here the best one sentence definition of regeneration that I have seen. It generally shows up in our Bible as 'quickening.' Jesus defines it thus “For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” (John 5:21-25) Once we were dead, then we were quickened, now we will live forever.

Justification is best defined by Scripture in 2Cor 5:21 For he hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Being saved from the condemnation of sin is coming under the umbrella of what Christ did for us. Justification then is a heavenly judicial declaration of 1) remission of sin and of 2) restoration to God. This is a declarative justification, as proclaimed in Romans, not the demonstrative justification called for in the book of James⁴⁰.

Baptism into Christ often called the union with Christ, this is literally being united with Christ. Again probably best defined by Scripture in Christ's prayer in John 17:21-23 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the actual literal moving into our bodies by the Holy Spirit of God where by he now permanently indwells us. Again scripture pictures this superbly in 1Cor 6:19 What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. Also Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. When one is saved, the Holy Spirit of God takes up residence inside them, he indwells them.

Our purpose here is not to define and develop these 5 transactions that occur at salvation, but to demonstrate that Biblically they must all occur at an instant in time, the instant one is 'born-again'. Again our emphasis is on the marvelous revelation that all five parts of this so-great-salvation are instantaneous and united transactions. Making this connection is what will allow us to clearly differentiate the various errors of 'another gospel' and thus denominational differences. We can use this understanding of conversion as the hingepin to evaluate and bring into focus all other 'Christian' doctrines and differences. This Biblical model of salvation castigates a Calvinistic doctrine of election whereby one is regenerated as a precursor to their salvation. A Calvinist will hold tenaciously to their model, even when the preponderance of Scripture disallow it.

Some Problems With Foreknowledge

Systematic theology finds challenge in melding the 'whosoever wills' in the Bible, with the 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God' in Reformed Theology. This challenge is more broadly considered in rationalizing man's free will with God's sovereignty and God's foreknowledge and God's omniscience.

In defending his belief in decrees Augustus H. Strong, solidifies a problem we face in defining foreknowledge. He states that decrees, by which God has rendered certain all the events of the universe, past, present, and future, can be proven from finite reasoning about divine foreknowledge. Stating that:

“Foreknowledge implies fixity, and fixity implies decree. From eternity God foresaw all the events of the universe as fixed and certain. This fixity and certainty could not have had its ground either in blind fate or in the variable wills of men, since neither of these had an existence. It could have had its ground in nothing outside the divine mind, for in eternity nothing existed beside the divine mind. But for this fixity there must have been a cause; if anything in the future was fixed, something must have fixed it. This fixity could have had its ground only in the plan and purpose of God. In fine, if God foresaw the future as certain, it must have been because there was something in himself which made it certain; or in other words, because He had decreed it, ... while decree does not chronologically precede, it does logically proceed foreknowledge. Foreknowledge is not of possible events, but of what is certain to be. ... An event must be made certain, before it can be known as a certain event.”⁴¹

For the reformed theologian foreknowledge requires and implies that every breath, every hair and every decision of every individual was decreed by God, and that before the foundation of the earth. This reasoning of their logic is required by an a priori presumption that man has no free will and that every soul that gets saved does so because God decreed it, and every soul that gets damned to hell, does so because God decreed it. The whole mislead concept is entangled in their finite concept of God's foreknowledge.

Logically if God foreknows an event, then that event will come to pass; that event cannot be changed by the will of man; that event cannot be changed by the prayers of man; that event cannot be changed by the power of God, it is already decreed by God. That logic forces the Baptist who says “God does not 'choose' who gets saved, God just foreknows who will get saved” into the reformed theology of decrees whereby God, before the foundation of the world, decreed who would get saved. One must be careful of that slippery slope of error.

In our definition and consideration of the foreknowledge of God, therefore, we must be careful to use Scripture definition and God's illustration, not the Reformed Theologians restrictive and fatalistic definition. It must, therefore, remain a general knowledge and not a specific knowledge. It must be limited to the called out specifics and not haplessly applied to every heart beat, sigh and corpuscle of every souls existence.

If God declares “whosoever will may come;” if God allows man a free will to “choose you this day whom ye will serve;” if God gives license to mere humans that “whatsoever ye ask in my name I will do it;” then 'orthodox' definition of foreknowledge and the 'orthodox' consideration of what is included in God's foreknowledge, must be reconstructed and made to conform to Scripture. So it does. So it must.

Another challenge in considering God's foreknowledge is discovered in consideration of God's omniscience and any temporal restrictions He undertook in offering man their free will. If man is truly given a free will within God's restriction, but outside of his direct control, then God waits, in time, on mans will, decision, and action, before he acts or intervenes. This is clearly seen throughout the Bible and cannot be rationally denied. The theological dilemma that this presents however is insurmountable. The 'Open Theology'⁴² movement that recently pursued this vain has put theologians in an open uproar because it upset their finite logical model that God can real forward and backward in time like we do in watching “It's a Wonderful Life⁴³” each Christmas time.

This clear and literal rendering of God's word, whereby He acts based on what man thinks, does and prays, has made God temporal, or restricted to, and restricted in, time, which He, being everlasting, created! This clear and literal understanding of God's word also diminishes omniscience in that mans free will puts many of his specific decisions and actions as yet undetermined and thus unknowable. Indeed a proper rendering of Scripture shows that the verses used to support God's omniscience are always given in the present tense. The logic of a theologian is severely challenged by thee restrictions. They will insist that God can reel time backward and forward without restriction and that his omniscience is for every moment on His film reel giving Him complete access to your every decision and direction. This turns foreknowledge into fatalism and Calvinism. The theologian will (and has) twist and take out of context as many Scriptures as necessary to keep God free to move about in time, and free to foreknow your every pulse and decision, but the Bible does not lock him there. This makes for a controversial standoff between our logic, our free will, and our categorization of God's attributes. The simple solutions are all cornered, categorized, over simplified, and staunchly defended; i.e. God knows all and chose all, Calvinism; God knows little, chose none and then holds none, Arminianism, or Open Theology were God is not omnipresent, just very present, not omniscient just very niscient, not omnipotent, just very potent.

In Scripture, there is precious little indication that God foreknew in time the insignificant details of ones life. In fact we will discover that there are only 5 recorded things revealed that God knew before the foundation of the earth. We must be careful not to add to that list with our finite logic, no matter how sound we consider it. Let the revelation of Scripture determine what God foreknew, not the inevitable finite logic of our theology.

The Quagmire Of Open Theology

Another, more current, 'knee jerk' reaction to the error's of Calvinism and the reformed doctrine of election and predestination of souls, is what is now called 'open theism.' Like Joseph Arminian of 1542, who assembled and published 5 arguments against reformed theology, Richard Rice, a follower of Ellen G. White, the Seventh Day Adventist, published arguments against reformed theology in his 1994 book “The Openness of God: The Relationship of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will.⁴⁴” Just like reformed theologians of the Presbyterian Church over reacted to Arminian's five arguments with five bold and errant points of Calvinism, now known as TULIP, there is building a large over reaction to Rice's Open Theology. Level heads of Biblical theologians have yet to develop and expound a sound Biblical systematic theology which captures God's emphasis of the free will of man, as well as God's sovereign control and foreknowledge of the events in His universe. Calvinism and Reformed Theology, with its roots in infant baptism, state churches and burning or drowning Anabaptists, is not to be trusted with such a task. Even less could we trust Richard Rice, the Ellenist with roots in Whites' bizarre doctrines of the advents and pitiful doctrine of soteriology. Such a source is not reliable to outline a Biblical solution, but a dialog has been initiated that could produce a healthy alternative to Calvinism and Arminianism when taken in moderation.

Recognize here that this 'movement' arose because current systematic theology works have a blind bias toward reformed theology, with a non personal God who is unable to be influenced by our prayers, unreactive to mans free will decisions, and not responsive to mans independent actions. Until such a work is articulated, one must resolve the very strained understanding in his own mind. This work is but a flag that points out the dilemma, intending to keep you from camping in any of these three corners of Calvinism, Arminianism and now Open Theology. They are each riddled with error and inconsistency. It is currently better to open your Bible and think this out on your own than it is to trust the work of a single theologian writing from his 'camp'. The Reformed Theologian's answers are wholly inadequate, and the buzz of evangelicals reacting to open theology make a good catalyst for a type of independent thinking that keeps one out of the old ruts. (It can also drive us deeper into dead old ruts so that we do not have to think, be careful here, ruts are prevalent.)

Dr. John Sanders has taken up a defense of Open Theology as it has been modified to step out of an errant corner of thinking, back into Biblical light. He provides this partly quoted summary:

“According to openness theology, the triune God of love has, in almighty power, created all that is and is sovereign over all. In freedom God decided to create beings capable of experiencing his love. In creating us the divine intention was that we would come to experience the triune love and respond to it with love of our own and freely come to collaborate with God towards the achievement of his goals. ...

“ Second, God has, in sovereign freedom, decided to make some of his actions contingent upon our requests and actions.... God, at least since creation, experiences duration. God is everlasting through time rather than timelessly eternal.

“Third, the only wise God has chosen to exercise general rather than meticulous providence, allowing space for us to operate and for God to be creative and resourceful in working with us. ... What people do and whether they come to trust God makes a difference concerning what God does-God does not fake the story of human history.

“Fourth, God has granted us the type of freedom (libertarian) necessary for a truly personal relationship of love to develop. Again, this was God's decision, not ours. ...

“Finally, the omniscient God knows all that can be known given the sort of world he created. ... We believe that God could have known every event of the future had God decided to create a fully determined universe. However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. ...

“This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open)....

“ Our rejection of divine timelessness and our affirmation of dynamic omniscience are the most controversial elements in our proposal